85 is where I thought it'd settle. Pretty good for Gears 5 and a nice springboard to try new things in the next Gears. There's still time to give us an survival horror Gears spinoff. I'll buy ten!
I still think the point stands - if you want to know about the multiplayer you should go straight to the community for feedback. Not a reviewer who spends 10 hours with it at launch.But these are final "complete" reviews of a video game that is pushing its mp as hard as its sp, it's insanity to just completely ignore it.
Damn, it didn't get a 90+?
Shame. Guess the game isn't good at all.
No you're the one who does not know what they are talking about lol
I'd love to see a Gears game that doubles down on the horror.
85 is where I thought it'd settle. Pretty good for Gears 5 and a nice springboard to try new things in the next Gears. There's still time to give us an survival horror Gears spinoff. I'll buy ten!
Come on bro, a game with empty worlds, no fast travel, takes 5 minutes from base to the world, the most repetitive game ever existed. Save him, kill him, extract him. Game is finished. Cut scene ending, now repeat all that only harder and you get another scene. Yup, definitely a 9 there.
Jesus man, the point is they're reviewing the entire game there. They aren't saying a SP only review, this is their full review and it doesn't mention 2/3 of the game. It's ridiculous and indefensible. Would you take a CoD review seriously that doesn't say campaign only and then proceeds to completely ignore the entire MP side of things?I still think the point stands - if you want to know about the multiplayer you should go straight to the community for feedback. Not a reviewer who spends 10 hours with it at launch.
This is interesting because I certainly have enjoyed games in the 80s BUT it is true that in this age and during a period of time with so many releases, that a game that does get 90+ is probably a surer bet than one that doesn't achieve that. Games are expensive and it's understandable to be wary of games that don't get the very high scores. Basically if it's in the 80s you can probably wait for a sale whereas 90+ might be a can't miss scenario. This doesn't account for hardcore fans of the franchise though as they will get it anyway.
i really think coalition could make a real system seller if they weren't shackled to this tired franchise. let them loose microsoft.
Why are you making a change to a game? What do those changes add to the game?
Some time back, a friend of mine gave an example of Dead or Alive to Dead or Alive 2. Tomonobu Itagaki and Team Ninja revamped the counter hold system, they made it very rewarding to play defense. To some degree, it was overpowered. In the very next iteration, they evolved the system, counter holds did a good amount of damage, but nowhere near as much as they did in DoA2. But he also made another change to the game by adding a layer on mid hitting moves where the counter hold for kicks was forward+Free, and Back+Free for punched. That small change added an element of chess to the game where one now either had to make a hard read on combo's that featured mid moves, or they could simply block and see where that went.
In Tekken, they added the bound mechanic in Tekken 6 and became tailspin in Tekken 7. The addition of the low parry combined with these, and the rage drive/art had more and more people inching towards launchers and juggles of launchers. Or on the other extreme, simply poking.
The people that think that this is the same Gears are those that have an agenda. There are small changes that have been made that significantly add to how you can interact with the game. There is the player initiated combat and stealth. I have seen gameplay where someone wandered through a room and through stealth killed off deebee's one at a time. All he had to do was choose a path where he could not be noticed.
I have seen an area where locust two or was it three locust were marked by JD so that Marcus and Kait could deal with them as they focused.on others. There is the added dimension to Jack, improved play by using the environment either by shooting ice or blowing up other things. There is a vastly bigger tactical element to playing career than there has been on any Gears game, so many different situations to how one can now move through a level. That was never the case in previous Gears games. There is also some interaction with NPC's, this is something I would love for them to expand on going forward.....all these things were not there in previous Gears games, but you have people stating that it is the same game.
Those tweaks are bigger than some of the things you mention. And RE7 going first person is simply a change in how we perceive the game, not how we play it. Uncharted adding a rope added more vertical gameplay, but at its core, it was the same Uncharted we have played since last generation.
So, what are people asking for? Why are they asking for it? Is it because it is needed, or is it because they have this fetish to see change for the sake of it?
Edit: And people also have to notice that whatever changes go into these games will affect the multiplayer, not just cooperative game play. There is a good reason why there are very few games that offer a really good campaign, and a stellar multiplayer that will last some years to boot. That shit ain't easy.
More like the last flicker of the Xbox One's dim candle. There won't be any more first party releases of this magnitude until Scarlett comes out.
The same is true of literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of games/series. Good design and longevity isnt predicated on the core loop alone.I mean, kudos to the Coalition for managing to find ways to make the Gears formula from over ten years ago still play well enough but the game was always going to be held back by the fact its core loop is still the same loop from 2006. Gears 5 was never going to be a "masterpiece". Nice to see that for those who still love Gears for what it is that this is a great Gears game though with some solid evolution.
I'm kind of desperate to see the series do something almost completely new, personally. I can't see Microsoft ever being willing to risk that core Gears multiplayer fanbase though.
Depends. On MC probably 30% and on Opencritic 50%
It is a lack of understanding of how the game is designed to work.Eh I tho k it's more people that aren't fans of a series are asking for the series to be something different instead of just accepting they don't like it. I don't like souls games, it would be silly for me to say "they need to revamp the movement and add actual story into the game" etc, when those are staples of the game design. It's just not for me and I'm fine with that
Less than half. Many of those remaining will probably be weighted less in the Metacritic rankings though (quite why one person's opinion is weighted more than another on there is beyond me though).
lol
Yeah, Spider-Man is a great example of how meaningless review scores are.Holy shit, Spider-Man was an 87? It was my game of the year last year (above God of War and AC:Odyssey). It was also one of my favorite games of this entire generation.